[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1
Yes of course - there is a relationship in that the patent you referenced describes the technical capability that Amazon wishes to leverage for their benefit. Joe Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton O: 703-902-6923 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:44 AM > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services > Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, > line 201, Figure 2-1 > > But there is a relationship. Obviously if they were > equivalent then Amazon would never be able to acquire theirs. > > On 8/4/05, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote: > > The reference you sent is actually quite different than the Amazon > > patent. The Amazon patent is about a marketplace, while the > reference > > you sent is regarding the technical capabilities. The > Amazone patent > > assumes that the technical capabilities are now there for it to > > capitalize on. > > > > Joe > > > > Joseph Chiusano > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > O: 703-902-6923 > > C: 202-251-0731 > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:44 AM > > > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services > > > Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line > > > 201, Figure 2-1 > > > > > > This has been going on for awhile (although this earlier one was > > > more generic): > > > > > > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HIT > > > OFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=18&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=p > > > txt&s1=Hewlett-Packard.ASNM.&s2='web+service'&OS=AN/Hewlett-Pa > > > ckard+AND+"web+service"&RS=AN/Hewlett-Packard+AND+"web+service" > > > > > > On 8/4/05, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Sotudeh, Kooros (US - McLean) > > > > > [mailto:csotudeh@deloitte.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:03 AM > > > > > To: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services > > > > > Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, > > > > > line 201, Figure 2-1 > > > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > > Some aspects of the web service marketplace concept > have already > > > > > been commercialized with the likes of Grand Central and > > > StrikeIron. > > > > > > > > Exactly - see David Linthicum's recent blog entry on this: > > > > > > > > http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/cto/archives/005190.asp > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > Joseph Chiusano > > > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > > > O: 703-902-6923 > > > > C: 202-251-0731 > > > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > Admittedly, still in early stages of gaining critical > > > mass to become > > > > > a true marketplace. Will be interesting to see how far > > > the Amazon > > > > > patent application goes and its impact on the other potential > > > > > players. > > > > > Personally, I don't like the idea of a patent for > this concept. > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:52 AM > > > > > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > Subject: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services > > > Marketplace] > > > > > RE: > > > > > [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, > Figure 2-1 > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if anyone has seen this yet (published late last > > > week)[1]: > > > > > > > > > > "Amazon files for Web services patent" - excerpts: > > > > > > > > > > - "Amazon.com has received a public airing of its patent > > > application > > > > > for an online marketplace where consumers search and > pay for Web > > > > > services." > > > > > > > > > > - "Amazon, in its latest filing, is seeking to patent its > > > idea for > > > > > creating a marketplace where third-party Web services > > > providers can > > > > > link up with consumers." > > > > > > > > > > A correction at the end of [1] states that the patent was > > > actually > > > > > filed last year, but the patent application was > published at the > > > > > time of the article. > > > > > > > > > > I bring this up now in relation to the 5/25 e-mail below > > > because Rex > > > > > had posed the question of a marketplace-type approach > > > (though he did > > > > > not use the exact term "marketplace"), and I > responded that such > > > > > "service markets" > > > > > would eventually exist, but in the far future. Note that > > > the Amazon > > > > > patent has not been granted, so my prediction may still > > > turn out to > > > > > be correct.;) > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > http://news.com.com/Amazon+files+for+Web+services+patent/2100- > > > > > 1038_3-580 > > > > > 8591.html > > > > > > > > > > Joseph Chiusano > > > > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > > > > O: 703-902-6923 > > > > > C: 202-251-0731 > > > > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:43 PM > > > > > > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect > > > 2, line 201, > > > > > > Figure 2-1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:39 PM > > > > > > > To: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; > > > > > > > soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, > > > > > line 201, > > > > > > > Figure 2-1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to cause too much more roiling, but it just > occurred to > > > > > > me that, > > > > > > > as a potential consumer who does not find a specific > > > > > > service ready to > > > > > > > be consumed, might we not also want to allow consumers a > > > > > > mechanism in > > > > > > > our RM by which they can advertise for a service? If so, > > > > > what do we > > > > > > > call that? > > > > > > > > > > > > eBay. ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > In all honesty, I was actually half-serious - I foresee the > > > > > day where > > > > > > large-scale "services markets" will come into existence. In > > > > > fact, if > > > > > > you add a "Priceline" aspect to it, a service consumer can > > > > > search for > > > > > > a service whose price (perhaps per transaction) meets its > > > > > requirement. > > > > > > But we're very far from that. > > > > > > > > > > > > The rest is another thread, on another list. > > > > > > > > > > > > In summary, I think the notion you mention is far-future - > > > > > too far to > > > > > > be mentioned in our spec. > > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > Joseph Chiusano > > > > > > Booz Allen Hamilton > > > > > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where in the > > > > > > > model does it belong? It is much like a service > request for > > > > > > > which there is not at a given point in time, an > > > available service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmmnnn? > > > > > > > Rex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:13 AM -0400 5/25/05, > > > <McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > >I am in agreement with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >This implies then that there is no real dependency on > > > > > Service from > > > > > > > >Service Description other than to allow a > possible link to > > > > > > > the service > > > > > > > >(a placeholder if you will) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >From: Christopher Bashioum > [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] > > > > > > > >Sent: May 25, 2005 9:05 AM > > > > > > > >To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > >Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > > > > > > > Fabric.Stop It!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would think that one would want to be able > to describe > > > > > > a service > > > > > > > >independent of whether or not it is consumable at a given > > > > > > > point in time > > > > > > > >to enable the concurrent development of services. In > > > > > > which case you > > > > > > > >would want the service description to indicate whether > > > > > or not the > > > > > > > >service was available for consumption (and if not, then > > > > > > > maybe the target date for availability). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca > > > > > > > >[mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca] > > > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:14 PM > > > > > > > >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > >Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > > > > > > > Fabric.Stop It!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Duane, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I agree with you. There is no point describing a > service if > > > > > > > a link to > > > > > > > >its endpoint cannot be found. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Does this then imply that we have a "must-have" > > > > > > > >relationship > > > > > > > which is > > > > > > > >far stricter than just a dependency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Finally, why describe a service if it cannot be consumed, > > > > > > for future > > > > > > > >reservations maybe similar to XML namespaces? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Comments anyone... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Wes > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > > > > > > > >Sent: May 24, 2005 2:56 PM > > > > > > > >To: Michael Stiefel > > > > > > > >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus > > > > > > > Fabric.Stop > > > > > > > >It!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Endpoints are part of a service description IMO. > > > > > Orchestration of > > > > > > > >multiple services is out of the scope of the core RM, > > > > > > much the same > > > > > > > >way as how multiple houses are positioned next to each > > > > > > > >other > > > > > > > in a grid > > > > > > > >layout is un-necessary in order to define a RM for house. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >A service or house do not have to exist amongst multiple > > > > > houses in > > > > > > > >order to be services/houses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Duane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Michael Stiefel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Could we then conceive of endpoints and orchestration > > > > > in such a > > > > > > > >> fashion? Or is the critical point aspect or > attribute in > > > > > > > which case > > > > > > > >> endpoint qualifies, but orchestration does not. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> To make a grammatical analogy, the RM defines a > > > > > > substantive, and > > > > > > > >> therefore adjectives (aspects and attributes) > are part of > > > > > > > the RM, but > > > > > > > >> verbs (actions) are not. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> (side note: I know verbs have aspect, but we are not > > > > > > > using the term > > > > > > > >> that way). > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Michael > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> At 02:34 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Since Structural Integrity is an aspect of > all houses, > > > > > > > it could be > > > > > > > >>> part of a RM as an abstract concept. Even if > you do not > > > > > > > explicitly > > > > > > > >>> design a house to have a certain set of > > > structural integrity > > > > > > > >>> parameters, it still does. It is not a component > > > > > > > >>> itself, > > > > > > > just an > > > > > > > >>> aspect or attribute. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Duane > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Michael Stiefel wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>> I thought of structural integrity in terms of the > > > > > > entire house, > > > > > > > >>>> not just a wall, but I think your point remains > > > the same. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Granted that each architecture needs to specify its > > > > > > structural > > > > > > > >>>> integrity, but shouldn't the RM have the concept of > > > > > structural > > > > > > > >>>> integrity since it is an abstract concept shared > > > by all RAs. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Michael > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> At 02:06 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> The RM does not necessarily have to get into > > > > > > cardinality rules > > > > > > > >>>>> IMO, > > > > > > > > >>>> unless they are very obvious. In the case of a > > > > > > > house, you may > > > > > > > > not >>>> make consistent rules stating that every house > > > > > > > has to have > > > > > > > > at least > > > > > > > >>>>> three walls since a wall can be curved or > any number > > > > > > of walls > > > > > > > >>>>> from > > > > > > > >>>>> 3 up. You may be able to infer from the > > > > > > > >>>>> relationships > > > > > > > that there > > > > > > > >>>>> is a certain cardinality if the RM for a house said > > > > > > > that each room > > > > > > > >>>>> has one door. > > > > > > > >>>>> That would declare an association between > the number > > > > > > > of rooms to > > > > > > > >>>>> the number of doors. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Structural integrity is an aspect of a wall, > > > which must > > > > > > > >>>>> be specialized for each architecture based > on a number > > > > > > > criteria. The > > > > > > > >>>>> RM declares what the wall is and its' purpose, the > > > > > > > architect has > > > > > > > >>>>> the job of specifying the actual walls to be > > > used for each > > > > > > > >>>>> architecture and ensuring they map back to > requirements. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> You are right - analogies are not definitions, > > > > > > however I have > > > > > > > >>>>> found them very useful in conveying the meaning. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Duane > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Michael Stiefel wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does the RM understand that some of the > concepts are > > > > > > > unique and > > > > > > > >>>>>> some multiple (without an exact number, you could > > > > > > > >>>>>> have one circular wall, 3 walls, 4 walls, etc.)? > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Using your analogy, how does the RM deal with > > > > > > > concepts such as > > > > > > > >>>>>> structural integrity. Structural integrity would > > > > > > apply to all > > > > > > > >>>>>> house RAs. In my way of thinking concepts such as > > > > > > > endpoints or > > > > > > > >>>>>> orchestration are analogous to this. > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> In the analogy I would see the reference > > > architecture as > > > > > > > >>>>>> Colonial American Reference Architecture, or > > > even more > > > > > > > >>>>>> specifically Colonial American Cape Ann, or > > > > > > Colonial American > > > > > > > >>>>>> Greek Revival reference architectures. > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Analogies are useful, but they are not > definitions. > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Michael > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> At 12:56 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> RA means Reference Architecture. As per the > > > > > > > previous emails on > > > > > > > >>>>>>> this subject, it is a generalized architecture. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The relationship is that architects use a RM as a > > > > > > > guiding model > > > > > > > >>>>>>> when building a RA. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> For example, if you are architecting a > house, an RM > > > > > > > may explain > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the concepts of gravity, a 3D environment, walls, > > > > > > > foundations, > > > > > > > >>>>>>> floors, roofs, ceilings etc. It is > abstract however. > > > > > > > There is > > > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing specific like a wall with > measurements such > > > > > > > as 8 feet > > > > > > > >>>>>>> high. Note that the RM has only one each of these > > > > > > > things - it > > > > > > > >>>>>>> does not have 4, 16, 23 walls, just one > as a concept. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The architect may uses this model to create > > > a specific > > > > > > > >>>>>>> architecture for a specific house (accounting for > > > > > > > such things as > > > > > > > >>>>>>> property, incline, climate etc) or an > architect MAY > > > > > > > elect to use > > > > > > > >>>>>>> it to build a more generalized reference > > > > > architecture. The > > > > > > > >>>>>>> latter is often done by architects who > design houses. > > > > > > > When they > > > > > > > >>>>>>> sell a house, they must often re-architect the RA > > > > > > > >>>>>>> for > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation details such as incline of land, > > > > > > > climate, facing > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the sun etc.. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> So why do we need a RM? Simple - we now have > > > > > > > logical divisions > > > > > > > >>>>>>> amongst the components of a house and > what they mean. > > > > > > > That way, > > > > > > > >>>>>>> when a company says " we are a flooring > > > > > company..", that is > > > > > > > >>>>>>> meaningful since we all know what that means. The > > > > > > > same applies > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to a roofing company. Without the basic > consensus > > > > > > > >>>>>>> on the logical divisions, a roofing > contractor may > > > > > > > >>>>>>> also try > > > > > > > to include > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the ceiling and walls as part of his offerings. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That would not work and not allow the general > > > > > > contractor to > > > > > > > >>>>>>> build a house very easily since there may not be > > > > > > > consensus upon > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the division of labor and components to > > > build the house. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Do you guys think an explanation of this > nature may > > > > > > > be good to > > > > > > > >>>>>>> include in the introduction section? > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Duane > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What is an RA? What is the relationship > between an > > > > > > > RM and an RA? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What is > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the RM->RA path for SOA? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Matt also submitted last week (I > believe) that we > > > > > > > may not even > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> need an > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> RA. How should that change our notion of > > > RM, if at all? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Joe > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Joseph Chiusano > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Booz Allen Hamilton > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Rex Brooks > > > > > > > President, CEO > > > > > > > Starbourne Communications Design > > > > > > > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison > > > > > > > Berkeley, CA 94702 > > > > > > > Tel: 510-849-2309 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message (including any attachments) contains > confidential > > > > > information intended for a specific individual and > > > purpose, and is > > > > > protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, > > > you should > > > > > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or > distribution of > > > > > this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is > > > strictly > > > > > prohibited. [v.E.1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]